The Afterlife! Is it Possible?

[_Quantumwave]

The subject of afterlife seems to be very sensitive, and perhaps even strangely frightening. After posting some information on another thread, the poster “Gramps” said that the subject made him require a “shower” (which I found humorous) and he said he never wanted to talk to me again. Wow!...such an egregious loss! Brings up memories of junior high school.

But then perhaps he was expressing a valid and not so unpopular sentiment. Is the subject of afterlife that sensitive?

The LDS version is tied to temple activities, so the subject is understandably sensitive for our TBM friends. The CK is only achievable after the required amount of pray-pay-and obey is rendered and then of course admission is by secret handshakes and proper answers to codified questions. Reminds me of the “secret clubhouse knock” my friends and I had when we were about 12.

The main problem I have with the LDS version of the afterlife is the belief that God has a human body, and lives near a star in the sky. The name of this star is Kolob and it controls other lesser stars. The whole concept strikes me as ridiculous.

But then, the afterlife concepts that I find interesting are way beyond the realms of possibility for many, and even creates the response of anger in some. I find that a lot of people won’t even consider discussing it, many who otherwise openly discuss the sensitive issues of religion and politics. I find these reactions quite curious.

After I ferreted out the unvarnished LDS history back before the internet, I became a card-carrying, meeting-attending atheist. A project I undertook was to expose the fraudulent mediums and phony psychics who were pushing the concept of the afterlife and extracting money from the credulous. I found a truckload of phonies, but I also found some evidence I could not break down. Eminent scientists who like me, (not and eminent scientist) set out to expose fraudulent mediums, but were subjected to personal experiences they couldn’t refute, even with dozens, and sometimes hundreds of experiences under strictly controlled conditions which they carefully documented. (I have not personally had such an experience).

There are many different categories of experience that imply an afterlife. One of the first I investigated, and did not accept for some time, are the testimonies of near-death experiencers. The first book I read regarding this subject was the now notorious “Life After Life” by Dr. Raymond Moody. The explanation that was provided, and which I accepted at the time, was the NDE’Relief Society were experiencing stress-induced hallucinations, most likely the result of apoxia. But then, after considerable time, I happened to find examples of NDE’s that couldn’t be explained by chemical imbalance or stress. So I concluded that while NDE testimonies do not conclusively “prove” the afterlife exists, they do provide some consistent evidence of high integrity.

Other experience categories I investigated are reincarnation evidenced by past-life memories, death-bed visions out-of-body experiences, instrumental transcommunication, ITC, electronic voice communication, EVP, and then perhaps the most controversial, the mediumistic communications.

All of these categories consist of anecdotal evidence which do not provide conclusive proof. However, taken as a whole, and after evaluating the integrity of many of those making the claims, I must admit the evidence becomes compelling.

As I have stated before, if any one of the multiple-millions of testimonies is true, then the afterlife is a reality.

So is the subject of the afterlife aggravating or frightening, or perhaps so completely incredulous that it is not worth considering?

[_Ray A]

So is the subject of the afterlife aggravating or frightening, or perhaps so completely incredulous that it is not worth considering?

I think it's certainly worth investigating, and like you I've read quite a bit of evidence I haven't seen refuted. I don't believe that proof exists, but the evidence tends to be dismissed on preconceived ideas that are not well thought out or debated. Many people dismiss this because it has a pseudo-religious tone, and is kind of "New Ageish". My brother authored two books on afterlife and the paranormal and is working on a third. I think his motivation is the fear of death, and a strong desire to come back, to reincarnate, and he's only been dwelling more seriously on this issue since he was about in his mid sixties. He's nearly 72 now. He doesn't have a very critical mind either, and tends to accept far more than he should, but his stories entertain, and sell books, which is his main goal, though he does have an intense interest in the afterlife.

In regard to Victor Zammit, whom you mentioned earlier, I've only had about half-dozen email exchanges with Victor, and he tells me he's not the least interested in religion, but in "facts". I presume you've communicated with him as well?

I have never had an NDE, or seen a ghost, but I have been subjected to very unusual phenomena, several times, which are inexplicable. Because of these several experiences I keep an open mind, but I can understand why so many doubt unusual phenomena even exist.

By the way, I doubt Moody believes that NDE phenomena are stress-induced hallucinations, even if he may have at first. I think Blackmore has lost the plot with her explanations, except where some drug-induced OBEs are concerned, and she admitted when she departed from the study of NDEs that "it might all be true". She has concluded nothing definitely, but in the media she gives her solid opinion that it's all rationally explainable. Her research has not concluded that and critiques of it have been quite solidly based. I am open to rational explanations, but Blackmore's I find to be very weak.

I tend to distance myself from too much speculation, and afterlife and paranormal books, studies and media reporting have exploded in the last ten years, to the point where I'm seeing the same sort of "excessive enthusiasm" and "testimony bearing" type accounts that I see in religion. I have also read accounts of NDErs who have said they experienced all the usual phenomena, yet said they firmly believed it was all in their brain. In the case of people who have been dead for longer periods, like 20-30 minutes, I have no idea how a dead brain can function, unless the brain retroactively conjures up all this upon restarting, something like how we only remember dreams upon waking. Your thoughts?

[_Roger Morrison]

Is anything impossible? Life after what? Of course there's "life" after "death"! In fact, does "life" ever cease? NO, "it" just changes its state. Like gas to liquid to solid to liquid to gas to... WE decompose and return all to the environment from which we extracted, in various ways, what sustained us after the egg and sperm wrestled in ecstacy.

Theories, hopes, dreams, speculations, philosophies, fanticies, circumstancial evidence.... "Near-death" experience, is that like being 'nearly-pregnant'? I might be less sceptical if we were talking "Really-dead" experience; like for days... in numbers claimed by the NDEs.

You are correct about the reluctance of religious types to conclude anything but the traditional grave side poetry, prose and ruminations that provide comfort at a time of loss and grieving. Satisfying as that might be for a short period of healing time, we Judeo-Christians do not invest in the premise as our Egyptian neighbors once did... Too smart for that?

However, is "it" as probable as "it" is improbable? Simply speculation. Belief or disbelief is purely a matter of choice and indoctrination; as a Christian or an Atheist hopeful. I tend to think we need more folks enjoying "Near-Life Experiences"...

[_Ray A]

Theories, hopes, dreams, speculations, philosophies, fanticies, circumstancial evidence.... "Near-death" experience, is that like being 'nearly-pregnant'? I might be less sceptical if we were talking "Really-dead" experience; like for days... in numbers claimed by the NDEs.

There is actually an account of one man who was dead for three days. No, it's not Jesus.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence10.html

He was also an avowed atheist. Yet after the experience, he devoted himself exclusively to the study of spirituality, taking a second doctorate in the psychology of religion. He then became an ordained priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church. He served as a pastor at St. Paul United Methodist Church in Baytown, Texas.

And he's not the only one.

Here is something else he wrote:

Many people have asked me what I believe in, how my NDE changed my life. All I can say is that I now believe in the God of the universe. Unlike many other people, however, I have never called God the light, because God is beyond our comprehension. God, I believe, is even more than the light, because God is also darkness. God is everything that exists, everything - and that is beyond our ability to comprehend at all. So I don't believe in the God of the Jews, or the Christians, or the Hindus, or in any one religion's idea of what God is or is not. It is all the same God, and that God showed me that the universe in which we live is a beautiful and marvelous mystery that is connected together forever and for always.

[_beastie]

I was somewhat obsessed with this topic for a year or so, but became discouraged because I could not find NDE accounts that were more than anecdotal. One of the books referenced a study done by a hospital (I think in FLA, but it's been several years and I could be misremembering) that had supposedly conducted a highly detailed, scientific investigations containing the type of information that would be needed to fairly evaluate these claims. Do any of you all know of such studies? I want events clearly documented, ie, if the NDE claims that the individual "saw" a shoe outside the hospital window, I want contemporary reports about said shoe. I want solid, documented information, not claims that seemed to be largely based on stories and memory.

[_Quantumwave]

Hi Ray,

Your well thought-out post indicates your assessment of the possibility of an afterlife is very similar to my own. My assessment probably assigns a somewhat higher probability of afterlife reality, but contrary to statements by Victor Zammit, I believe there is no “absolute proof”.

“In regard to Victor Zammit, whom you mentioned earlier, I've only had about half-dozen email exchanges with Victor, and he tells me he's not the least interested in religion, but in "facts". I presume you've communicated with him as well?”

My single e-mail to Victor was not answered.


“I tend to distance myself from too much speculation, and afterlife and paranormal books, studies and media reporting have exploded in the last ten years, to the point where I'm seeing the same sort of "excessive enthusiasm" and "testimony bearing" type accounts that I see in religion. I have also read accounts of NDErs who have said they experienced all the usual phenomena, yet said they firmly believed it was all in their brain. In the case of people who have been dead for longer periods, like 20-30 minutes, I have no idea how a dead brain can function, unless the brain retroactively conjures up all this upon restarting, something like how we only remember dreams upon waking. Your thoughts?”

I base my conclusions on what I categorize as evidence of high integrity. I attempt to evaluate information with three basic tests, ie, integrity of the source, evidential reproducibility and multiple-independent sources of verification. I don’t usually obtain all three on the same evidence, but it occasionally happens. As you pointed out, there is an increasing amount of afterlife information and hype with the same sort of zeal one sees from religious sources, so I believe it is important to make frequent use of the BS detector which my tests of integrity tend to do.

As I pointed out in a previous post, I like to show connections between modern scientific investigation and afterlife claims. While this is mainly speculation, I find some of the connections quite intriguing.

Regarding the extended time of death for some NDEer’s, this appears to support the contention that memory resides in some other medium other than, or perhaps in addition to the brain. One such account was a woman who not only had a flat EKG, but her EEG was also flat, which of course meant her brain was essentially dead. After revival she was able to recall events that occurred while she was “out”.

I have a problem assimilating a lot of this with reality, but I must admit the source of the information has high integrity.

[_moksha]

I really liked that program on the Afterlife for various faith traditions on the History Channel the other day. This certainly is a subject that has been consuming our collective attention for a long time.

[_Ray A]

My single e-mail to Victor was not answered.

QW,

Victor does sometimes lag behind in answering emails, and may miss some. I doubt he's ignoring you. I haven't heard from him for a while, even though I wrote him last. I think he just gets consumed with his research projects, and travelling.

I base my conclusions on what I categorize as evidence of high integrity. I attempt to evaluate information with three basic tests, ie, integrity of the source, evidential reproducibility and multiple-independent sources of verification. I don’t usually obtain all three on the same evidence, but it occasionally happens. As you pointed out, there is an increasing amount of afterlife information and hype with the same sort of zeal one sees from religious sources, so I believe it is important to make frequent use of the BS detector which my tests of integrity tend to do.

I believe that's the right approach to take. If ever you feel inclined to email me my email is clickable at the bottom of the page. I try to maintain an "academic" approach, if you like, but I haven't been doing that while working for my brother as a researcher because his attitude to a scientific approach is poor. He's more interested in the stories and taking them at face value, for "entertainment" purposes. I question everything, but I do find what has been related and recorded very impressive.

Regarding the extended time of death for some NDEer’s, this appears to support the contention that memory resides in some other medium other than, or perhaps in addition to the brain. One such account was a woman who not only had a flat EKG, but her EEG was also flat, which of course meant her brain was essentially dead. After revival she was able to recall events that occurred while she was “out”.

I have a problem assimilating a lot of this with reality, but I must admit the source of the information has high integrity.

I don't know if you've studied the work of Sir William Crooks or Sir Oliver Lodge, but here is a link with basic information:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/backgro ... roof1.html

Ronald Pearson is the man carrying on their work, and there's information about him in that link. You will also be interested in this link, a 1933 lecture from Sir Oliver Lodge: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scienti ... -mofe.html

They have drawn much skepticism from "mainstream science". Michael Roll records this about Sir William Crooks:

Sir William Crookes was able to wipe the floor with contemporary professional wreckers who dared to attack him. The following is how he dealt with Professor W.B. Carpenter, a biologist from London University, who made a very unfair and anonymous attack upon him in the 'Quarterly Review'. Carpenter had been unfortunate enough to describe Crookes as "a specialist of specialists".


"My greatest crime (he wrote in his reply to Carpenter's diatribe in the 'Quarterly Journal of Science') seems to be that I am a 'specialist of specialists'. It is indeed news to me that I have confined my attention only to one special subject. Will my reviewer kindly say what that subject is? Is it General Chemistry, whose chronicler I have been since the commencement of the Chemical News in 1859? Is it Thallium, about which the public have probably heard as much as they care for? Is it Chemical Analysis, in which my recently published Select Methods are the result of twelve years work?
Is it disinfection and the 'Prevention and Cure of Cattle Plague', my published report on which may be said to have popularized Carbolic Acid?
Is it Photography, on the theory and practice of which my papers have been very numerous? Is it Metallurgy of Gold and Silver, in which my discovery of the value of Sodium in the amalgamation process in now largely used in Australia, California and South America?
Is it Physical Optics, in which department I have space only to refer to papers of some Phenomena of Polarized Light, published before I was twenty one; to my detailed description of the Spectroscope and labours with this instrument, when it was almost unknown in England; to my papers on the Solar and Terrestrial Spectra; to my examination of the Optical Phenomena of Opals, and construction of the Spectrum Microscope; to my papers on the Luminous Intensity of Light; and my description of my Polarization Photometer?
Or is it my speciality Astronomy and Meteorology, in as much as I was for twelve months at the Radcliffe Observatory, Oxford, where, in addition to my principal employment of arranging the meteorological department, I divided my leisure between Homer and Mathematics at Magdelen Hall, Planet-hunting and transit tracking with Mr. Pogson, now Principal of the Madras Observatory, and celestial photography with the magnificent heliometer attached to the Observatory? My photographs of the Moon, taken in 1855, at Mr. Hartnup's Observatory, Liverpool, were for years the best extant, and I was honoured by a money grant from the Royal Society to carry out further work in connection with them. These facts, together with my trip to Oran last year, as one of the Government Eclipse Expedition, and the invitation recently received to visit Ceylon for the same purpose, would almost seem to show that Astronomy was my speciality. In truth, few scientific people are less open to the charge of being a 'specialist of specialists'."

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scienti ... ookes.html

[_Ray A]

I was somewhat obsessed with this topic for a year or so, but became discouraged because I could not find NDE accounts that were more than anecdotal. One of the books referenced a study done by a hospital (I think in FLA, but it's been several years and I could be misremembering) that had supposedly conducted a highly detailed, scientific investigations containing the type of information that would be needed to fairly evaluate these claims. Do any of you all know of such studies? I want events clearly documented, ie, if the NDE claims that the individual "saw" a shoe outside the hospital window, I want contemporary reports about said shoe. I want solid, documented information, not claims that seemed to be largely based on stories and memory.

beastie, I think that's the bottom line. We can't go on faith here, or just on feelgood stories. As I mentioned to QW, for the past year while researching fulltime I have not gone into exacting details, follow ups, nor collating all of the critical information as well as I should have. Had too many publication deadlines to meet for essentially a Storyteller, not a scientist. The shoe outside the hospital window story is now ancient history, and never used in contemporary NDE research. The evidence today has become far more detailed and sophisticated. In fact the shoe story is probably one of the weakest evidences we have in comparison to what has become available in the last few years.

[_Quantumwave]

Thanks for the links, Ray. That's a lot of information, and from the little I read, it provides somethe scientific correlations that are of special interest to me. I continue to doubt there is absolute scientific proof of the afterlife, but the implications are very strong. Some of what I read reinforced a few of the scientific parallels with afterlife claims I have found. You have given me a lot of information to consider.

I have seen the 1933 lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge. He and Sir William Crookes provide information that I classify as "evidence from a source of high integrity".